Religious "moderates" and atheists

[Mudhammam]

I still don't get what moral theory you're operating under which says that if I identify as a specific religion, I'm somehow responsible for the acts of others who do likewise. Religion is associated with bad acts. I get that. But so is capitalism, communism, liberalism, conservativism, etc. There's no group of people for whom there aren't bad seeds. I fail to see where, because there's a historical connection between my beliefs and those of a fundamentalist, like say enrico / Riketto, that because we both belong to the same umbrella group, I somehow inherit a moral responsibility for his behavior. Are you responsible for the behaviors of every corporation whose product you buy? I get that you are angered by what you feel the religious have done, but under what theory do I get tarred and feathered simply for belonging to the same group? If associating with a group that has contained bad actors is a crime, then you are all guilty as well.

I think you're conflating the doctrines of a religion with the individual adherents of a religion. Bad acts can certainly be associated with capitalists, liberals, or communists but that's different than those actions being fundamental to the doctrines of liberalism or communism themselves. My point is that many of the criticisms directed at religion, which are disavowed by the moderates, are intrinsic to the religion, part of the creeds, essential to the texts. If the overwhelming number of communists "misinterpreted" the original ideas to commit crimes against others, and one persists on being a communist, then it is THEIR job to stigmatize and discredit the majority who have gone so wayward. It's not the job of the capitalist to fight the misconceptions of communism. So when the moderates complain that atheists are attacking straw-men or a brand of faith that isn't true to the tenets of their religion, why aren't the moderates either 1) distancing themselves by a different label than the one that has been corrupted, or 2) forging alliances with the atheists to do what we are attempting to do, which is discredit the ideas we all agree are horrible. My suspicion is that the moderates only claim to be separatists from the mainstream faith but when one gets down to it, their actual beliefs differ very little.

Is one a moderate if he or she believes that the path to heaven is very narrow and can only be achieved by daily commitment to Jesus' Gospel, and that everyone else on earth is going to burn in hell for eternity? No. But that's what mainstream Christianity teaches. Is one a moderate if he or she believes children who doubt or question their beliefs are somehow faltering from the narrow path? No. But that's what the majority of Christians encountered in my life have believed. Where are all the moderates when the good Christian faces these external and internal pressures? It seems they only come out of the woodwork and speak up when the concerned atheist does first. Are there any moderate churches that encourage the believer to read dissenting material, to question the faith?

Certainly, some moderates exist. Kenneth Miller comes to mind as one, particularly on the topic of creationism. I don't know what his views are on the ideas I've mentioned...perhaps he's not so moderate after all. I don't know. My thesis is simply that the religious moderate is, like the atheist, on the fringe. I wonder why we don't both recognize this and do more to forge alliances in fighting religious fear-mongering and the suppression of intellectual faculties.

[Ryantology]

Clean up you own house first, dudes. The antireligious bigotry on display in this thread is disgraceful. KKK? Nazis? Com'n.

I'm sorry if it makes me an anti-Christian bigot, but I still refuse to tolerate the Klan or Nazis.

[Angrboda]

I think you're conflating the doctrines of a religion with the individual adherents of a religion.

I'm conflating? You're the one who is asserting that my membership in a group makes me responsible for the acts of individuals in that group.

Bad acts can certainly be associated with capitalists, liberals, or communists but that's different than those actions being fundamental to the doctrines of liberalism or communism themselves.

And there are also systematic flaws associated with each. Feel free to elaborate on what fundamental doctrines of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism you are referring to so that I may respond to your implicit claim that it is the fundamental doctrines of religion that are responsible for the bad acts of those within these faiths.

My point is that many of the criticisms directed at religion, which are disavowed by the moderates, are intrinsic to the religion, part of the creeds, essential to the texts. If the overwhelming number of communists "misinterpreted" the original ideas to commit crimes against others, and one persists on being a communist, then it is THEIR job to stigmatize and discredit the majority who have gone so wayward. It's not the job of the capitalist to fight the misconceptions of communism. So when the moderates complain that atheists are attacking straw-men or a brand of faith that isn't true to the tenets of their religion, why aren't the moderates either 1) distancing themselves by a different label than the one that has been corrupted, or 2) forging alliances with the atheists to do what we are attempting to do, which is discredit the ideas we all agree are horrible.

This is fucking weak. First you imply that I have a positive duty to criticize and condemn other Hindus, and when pressed on the matter, it becomes an argument that I have a negative duty not to participate in bad acts such as defending bad actors, associating with them, or defending corrupt doctrines. Your goalposts are moving.

My suspicion is that the moderates only claim to be separatists from the mainstream faith but when one gets down to it, their actual beliefs differ very little.

My suspicion is that these are your concerns, not mine, but you want to make me responsible for your concerns by painting me with a very broad brush.

Is one a moderate if he or she believes that the path to heaven is very narrow and can only be achieved by daily commitment to Jesus' Gospel, and that everyone else on earth is going to burn in hell for eternity? No. But that's what mainstream Christianity teaches. Is one a moderate if he or she believes children who doubt or question their beliefs are somehow faltering from the narrow path? No. But that's what the majority of Christians encountered in my life have believed. Where are all the moderates when the good Christian faces these external and internal pressures? It seems they only come out of the woodwork and speak up when the concerned atheist does first. Are there any moderate churches that encourage the believer to read dissenting material, to question the faith?

Again you're conflating the acts of individuals with those of a group. Since I'm Hindu, not Christian, I'll leave this rant where it fell — far from the point.

Certainly, some moderates exist. Kenneth Miller comes to mind as one, particularly on the topic of creationism. I don't know what his views are on the ideas I've mentioned...perhaps he's not so moderate after all. I don't know. My thesis is simply that the religious moderate is, like the atheist, on the fringe. I wonder why we don't both recognize this and do more to forge alliances in fighting religious fear-mongering and the suppression of intellectual faculties.

Again, I think you want to make me responsible for what is your concern by linking me to Hinduism globally with a weak "guilt by association" argument. I fail to see how any of the shit you mention is my problem as a religious moderate.

[archangle]

I find it strange that when atheists criticize religion for the devastating effects that it has on the human psyche (particularly as it relates to fear that is unfairly placed on children and gullible adults), individual freedom (the ability to doubt and question belief free of authority and judgment), and civil liberties (when people actually get physically hurt by religious dogma), the reaction by most religious "moderates" is: "Well, that's not our religion! Those people don't represent us!" This is a peculiar defense considering that oftentimes both the "moderate" and "extremist" take the same texts to be God's word, the only difference being that one interpretation is preferred over the other based on justifications that have little to do with pure reason. Hence, it comes down to both sides essentially claiming, "I'm just right and they're just wrong!"

What strikes me about this is that most atheists seem to only exist as vocal opponents to religion because the moderates aren't doing the job of discrediting the extremists themselves. And moderates, that is your job, not ours. Take the US, for instance, where biblical fundamentalism is hardly the fringe, yet moderates pretend that it is when an atheist comes along and brands those Christian ideas for what they are--insane, childish, silly, etc. If the majority of Christians believe that God literally made the world in six days, became a human sacrifice to atone for moral error as a blood offering, and anyone who doesn't believe in this Gospel is going to hell, maybe, just maybe it's time for the moderates to disassociate themselves with this group by coining a term other than "Christian" to identify themselves? Though it's not quite drastic enough in my opinion, how about Neo-Christian? Muslims and countless other religious "moderates" would be wise to do the same, if they wish to be taken seriously, and I would hope most moderates agree with me that fundamentalists don't offer many serious ideas. Who wouldn't want to run as far away as possible from a label that history has soaked and tarnished in so much blood? Can the KKK really reform themselves as a non-racist group while maintaining the organization's name, long associated with bigotry and other backward ideas. Can Christians?

Why can't atheists and moderates agree that these religious extremists should be stigmatized and discredited when clearly no one has anything to gain by supporting or giving cover to fundamentalists, except fundamentalists. And what do THEY have to gain? Well, only open a history book and see the world that it is they wish to return to--theocracy, suppression of free thought, persecution of non-believers,"deviants," and whatnot. This is apparent when you look at the number of children who are deprived of a proper science education, trading in the joy that comes with learning about the Universe and a human history of brilliant thinkers who held dissenting views, for a worldview that is small enough to fit inside a book usually just under 2,000 pages. Do moderates really support children spending hours upon hours of the week studying this book at the cost of other, more enlightening literature? Do moderates really not want children to learn opposing views, to question their beliefs, to have the freedom to doubt?

If the answer is no, then why not support the cause of the Dawkins' or the Harris' or the Hitchens'? Because as far as I can tell, they're not trying to rid the world of religious symbols, they're trying to rid the world of religion--which means taking those symbols so literally (or seriously, depending on your views of literalism) that it effects the growth of beings IN THIS LIFE, irregardless of the next.

be nice if we could do this with the 17 trillion dollar debt too.

[Mudhammam]

I'm conflating? You're the one who is asserting that my membership in a group makes me responsible for the acts of individuals in that group.

1) I never singled you out.
2) I never said you were responsible for anyone's actions.
3) If you're a member of a group that predominantly encourages the few problems I have mentioned, and you remain silent, do nothing, or feel no motivation to, then yes, you're part of the problem that is religious fundamentalism, not the solution. And if you speak out against the atheists (and moderates) who are speaking out and working against the fundamentalism that's born and nurtured in a major slice of religion's global pie, and also keeps much of the world in fear of Judgment Day, if you care about none of that--I question your capacity for compassion, and you probably should start doing so as well too.

And there are also systematic flaws associated with each.

If there are problems in my beliefs, I work to correct them. If you encourage apathy or shrug off the enormous suffering and suppression of the intellectual freedom that results from these "flaws," as you call them, and you happily claim membership without working for internal change, then yes, you're part of the problems that exist in a human psyche that often condemns the world instead of working to save it.

i Feel free to elaborate on what fundamental doctrines of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism you are referring to so that I may respond to your implicit claim that it is the fundamental doctrines of religion that are responsible for the bad acts of those within these faiths.

I never mentioned any of those religions. I'm primarily speaking about the big three monotheistic religions because I know those are harmful. My first seventeen years on earth were spent under the suppression of Christianity. And I'm somewhat familiar with Islam and Judaism, having read on them to some extent, so that's where I'm coming from. Buddhism doesn't seem so bad.

This is fucking weak. First you imply that I have a positive duty to criticize and condemn other Hindus, and when pressed on the matter, it becomes an argument that I have a negative duty not to participate in bad acts such as defending bad actors, associating with them, or defending corrupt doctrines. Your goalposts are moving.

Huh? No, you DEFINITELY have a "positive duty" if you want to engage in rational debate about how to move mankind forward.

My suspicion is that these are your concerns, not mine, but you want to make me responsible for your concerns by painting me with a very broad brush.

Uhhhh... yeah, YA THINK? And make you responsible? Yeah, ya know, were kinda in this whole life on earth thing together. Let me repeat: LIFE ON EARTH.

Again you're conflating the acts of individuals with those of a group. Since I'm Hindu, not Christian, I'll leave this rant where it fell — far from the point.

Who exactly are you talking to? I don't see any irrelevancy between this and anything I've said.

Again, I think you want to make me responsible for what is your concern by linking me to Hinduism globally with a weak "guilt by association" argument. I fail to see how any of the shit you mention is my problem as a religious moderate.

Wow. Maybe pick up a fucking newspaper and look for anything mentioning religion. Tell me what you read.

Dipshit.

[Bob Kelso]

Clean up you own house first, dudes. The antireligious bigotry on display in this thread is disgraceful. KKK? Nazis? Com'n.

As usual, Wooters, you've read what you wanted to see and have made a fool of yourself. Hmm... I wonder if Hooked on Phonics is still in business, seems you have some studying to do.

---

Jesus, rasetsu, calm your tits. Shonuff didn't single you out, or speak about any of the religions you brought up, and frankly he's right about the moderate position.

[Lek]

Moderate christians tend to be "wishy-washy" and liberal christians just seem to ignore clear doctrine. The mainline denominations, like Methodists, Presbyterians, etc, have been losing members dramatically since their doctrines have become more and more liberal. I agree that much of the bible is open for interpretation, but certain doctrines like the existence of hell, are very clearly stated. Jesus clearly let it be known that if you followed him the "world" would be against you. You can't be a christian and just throw away doctrines because they upset people.

[Ryantology]

Moderate christians tend to be "wishy-washy" and liberal christians just seem to ignore clear doctrine. The mainline denominations, like Methodists, Presbyterians, etc, have been losing members dramatically since their doctrines have become more and more liberal. I agree that much of the bible is open for interpretation, but certain doctrines like the existence of hell, are very clearly stated. Jesus clearly let it be known that if you followed him the "world" would be against you. You can't be a christian and just throw away doctrines because they upset people.

Christianity is losing adherents all over the developed world. It's not because the religion is being liberalized, but because the religion is becoming obsolete. What was once Christendom is now one of the most secular areas of the world, and the most in human history. The boost in Christian adherents comes mostly from poor, underdeveloped parts of the world, where people breed more, are less educated, and are more susceptible to the lies.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I think the moderates just provide the rich soil where the fundies thrive. Also yes, they believe in bullshit just the same.

A religious moderate is someone who would drown a witch whereas a fundie is someone who insists that the witch must be burned to death at the stake.

[Foxaèr]

I'm sorry if it makes me an anti-Christian bigot, but I still refuse to tolerate the Klan or Nazis.

No need for apology.